Protected: ‘argument’ with an objectivist over corporations.

So, apparently Logan Clements (Wikipedia page, his website Free Star Media) has an undergraduate degree in Economics and a Master of Business Administration.

(My first message was a response to a chat the previous night, where Clements kept talking about ‘voluntary’ vs. ‘physical violence’ and defending corporations and the like.)

Noor Mehta
November 18, 12:02 PM

Response–

You conflate corporations with plain businesses. ‘Corporations’ are legal entities that are supposed to be separate from the persons that form it. It’s this separate ‘entity’ that is purely fictional and is not a real person yet it’s granted the same human rights and can exercise them. This corporate ‘entity’ is separate from the shareholders and employees and designated as a means for limited liability, because if the ‘corporation’ fails, neither the shareholders nor employers are going to be held responsible for the debt.

You should know that the term ‘libertarian’ was coined and used by the French left-anarchists (to skirt around a ban on the word ‘anarchy’). ‘Libertarianism’ has traditionally referred to that, and I refuse to allow its enemies to change the entire term into what they want it to mean. The term ‘libertarian’ has always meant the anti-authoritarian left, period.

‘Non-forced’ is a necessary, but incomplete condition for morality, because if we define ‘morality’ as what one ought to do, it should be pretty clear that ‘force’ is not the only thing we ought not to do. We ought not to use verbal abuse, take advantage of others’ situations, discriminate against others on the basis of race or gender, etc.

Is there any physical force if you and I are in a house, and I leave the house while locking you inside and unable to get out? No physical force… and it’s still wrong. It’s also wrong if I take advantage of your situation, because you have no choice but to do what I tell you to. It’s not freedom for you either.

You are not free if you have the choice to choose between the US and Canadian governments– similarly, a worker is not free if he has only the choice to choose between two masters. If the worker is ‘free’ because he ‘voluntarily’ chose to work for one under the system that does not permit him to be in control over the products of his labor, then you might as well say that I chose to be under the US government simply because I voluntarily live here.

Logan Darrow Clements
November 18, 1:28 pm

Corporations are granted some, but not all the rights of a natural person.

I don’t care who/why the term libertarian was coined.

Objectivism is a better philosophy than libertarianism and advocates what we should do. Check it out.

Locking someone up is an act of force.

A worker can work for anyone in the world and many move large distances to do so. Even if he were physically unable to move outside his town he is still free. He can start his own business, get charity from others, etc. The point is no one is forcing him to work.

You still haven’t explained WHY ARE CORPORATIONS BAD?

Logan

Noor Mehta
November 19, 8:02 pm

You do know about *rational* self-interest, right? Rational means it is a part of reality, and corporations are fictional entities. ‘Fictional’ means they do not exist and are not a part of reality. Acting as if imaginary things were real, is going to be harmful to you when reality bites back. In your words, it won’t fulfil your values because you are not acting rationally when you act as if fictional entities are real.

I know all about Objectivism, I used to love it all back in 2007. The extreme individualism, rational egoism, anti-collectivism, anti-altruism, Roark and Dominique, capitalism, the three axioms (existence, identity, consciousness), etc. I’m familiar with all that.

I think you’re going to have to define what you mean by the term ‘force’, because normally it’s used to mean ‘physical force.’ Because if you extend it to mean anything that restricts a person’s freedom for value-expression, you end up having to count in competition and the like, and that does somewhat stretch it a bit.

If the worker does not have a choice but to work, he is not free. Just like I am not free just because I have a choice between say, the US and Canada governments. And even if Canada was stateless and I was free to move there, it would still not justify the US government, because being free to leave is not a sufficient justification for social authority.

My bringing up the history of the term ‘libertarian’ was in response to your statements that ‘left’ and ‘libertarian’ are somehow mutually exclusive. That statement implies a very narrow definition of ‘libertarian’, and ignores its entire history with the anti-authoritarian left. I refuse to call a computer a television, and I refuse to allow people to change the meaning of the term ‘libertarian’ into what they wish it to be.

Logan Darrow Clements
November 19, 8:10 PM

A corporation is a nexus of contracts. As such they exist for real.

–>For the third time you have failed to explain why corporations are bad.

You may be familiar with Objectivism but if you support left-wing views are are in direct conflict with Objectivism no matter how much you twist the meaning of…libertarianism.

Force=physical force or threat of physical force.

A worker has a choice. Period.

Left and libertarian ARE mutually exclusive unless you are talking about forming a communist society out in the woods where everyone joins voluntarily and can leave voluntarily and you acquire the land and all the property by mutually voluntary trade.

Noor Mehta
November 19, 8:38 PM

A nexus of contracts is separate from the fictional entity. I can sign a contract with someone pretending that Santa is real. It doesn’t make my voluntary contract anymore valid or just.

They are bad because when you act as if a fictional entity is real, that’s irrational behavior and will have negative repercussions for you and others.

I am not an Objectivist, and I only borrow a few ideas from it with my take on them. I do not ‘twist’ the meaning of ‘libertarianism’– I have repeatedly brought up the fact that libertarianism historically referred to the left, and only fairly recently has it started to mean ‘capitalism.’ Another point that you have failed to note.

Okay, I think ‘physical force’ is a fair definition. My original example was ‘locking someone up’– as in I invite you to my house, and I leave you locked inside. I have not even physically touched you, nor have I threatened to. Yet it is clearly slavery. So I think the relation between ‘physical force’ and ‘liberty’ is not exactly a dichotomy as you make it out to be.

“A worker has a choice. Period.” <– This again reflects your clear inability to respond to any of my points. Let me re-iterate again. You have a choice to choose between two rulers. That is not ‘freedom’, anymore than a person is ‘free’ simply because he/she can choose between, say, Obama and McCain.

I am not a communist. Socialism, communism, collectivism, etc. are all different terms with different meanings. The point of my version of anarchist socialism is that an individual is dependent on other people– that is, society. Your possessions were made by others– you cannot deny that. That is what self-professed collectivists mean by the label, that they recognize society, and that individuals will (as in a descriptive) stay in communities. If you want to be a hermit and go off into the woods and live by yourself, making all your food, clothes, surviving without anyone else, no one is going to stop you. But good luck.

Yet I am still an ‘individualist’ as in that I accept self-interest, except that I find that it is almost always in an individual’s self-interest to help others because generally if you help others, they will be willing to help you back. It’s not really that hard to grasp.

Logan Darrow Clements
November 20, 2:39 am

WTF are you talking about? Corporations are real Noor. Corporations exist as voluntary associations of people that produce things by pooling their money, time and effort. You’ll have a lot more “negative repercussions” if you ignore the existence of corporations.

Noor Mehta
November 20, 2:08 am

Holy crap, is that all you have to say?

Anyway, allow me to quote from myself earlier: “It’s this separate ‘entity’ that is purely fictional and is not a real person.”

I don’t ignore the belief in corporations today, or the effect the belief has on people. You conflate the belief in them with the fictional entity itself.

‘Voluntary association’, etc. <– You are AGAIN conflating corporations with plain business. They’re not the same. Learn the difference between a corporate business (association of people AND fictional legal entity) and a business (association of people alone).

Logan Darrow Clements
November 21, 9:04 pm

I honestly think you suffer some form of mental illness. Everyone knows that corporations are not actual things with mass but associations between people. Why are you obsessed with stating the obvious? In any case we enter into contracts with corporations (or not) so what sense does it make to pretend they don’t exist.

I see no value in having any further interaction with you. You clearly are a raving lunatic.

BTW: you can say “conflate” as many times as you want. It doesn’t make you appear smarter or more rational.

Take your medication.

(At that point, he removed and blocked me from Facebook, so I was unable to reply anymore.)